On Monday, September 16, 2024 at 6:41:02 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:53 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> It's claimed to be 46 billion LY, but its age is only measured as 13.8 billion years. What I find puzzling about these numbers is that it seems this would imply the rate of expansion must have been greater than c during its lifetime.* *No. It has taken light from a star (or more likely from the CMB) 13.8 billion years to reach us but during those 13.8 billion years the star has not remained stationary relative to us, it has been accelerating away. In fact telescopic observation tells us that 9 billion years ago, when Dark Energy became more dominant than Dark Matter (plus regular matter), the acceleration has been accelerating. This *MIGHT* be because as the universe expands Dark Matter (plus regular matter) becomes more dilute but Dark Energy does not become diluted because it is an intrinsic part of space itself, so the more space you have the more Dark Energy you have.* If an object is receding for 13.8 BY, and the universe is expanding during that time, doesn't that imply a recession velocity faster than c, for the object to be on our observational horizon of 46 BLY? AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9b72bdf-d6ef-4219-ae80-a8c9005ab1b9n%40googlegroups.com.
